Another
very important issue on the origin of marine mammals is the
great anatomical and physiological differences between them
and their alleged terrestrial ancestors. Evolutionists assume
that step-by-step processes were at work for all the necessary
transitions, but this is an absurd idea since many of the
systems in discussion are irreducibly complex structures that
could not form by successive stages.

Let us consider just one case: the ear structure.
Like us, land mammals trap sounds from the outside world in
the outer ear, amplify them with the bones in the middle ear,
and turn them into signals in the inner ear. Marine mammals
have no outer ear. They hear sounds by means of vibration-sensitive
receptors in their lower jaws. The crucial point is that any
evolution by stages between one perfect aural system to a
completely different one is impossible. The transitional phases
would not be advantageous. An animal that slowly loses its
ability to hear with its ears, but has still not developed
the ability to hear through its jaw, is at a disadvantage.

The question of how such a "development" could
come about is an insoluble dilemma for evolutionists. The
mechanisms evolutionists put forward are mutations and these
have never been seen to add unequivocally new and meaningful
information to animals' genetic information. It is unreasonable
to suggest that the complex hearing system in sea mammals
could have emerged as the result of mutations.

But evolutionists do believe in this unreasonable
scenario and this problem stems from a kind of superstition
about the origin of living things. This superstition is the
magical "natural force" that allows living things to acquire
the organs, biological changes, or anatomical features that
they need. Let us have a look at a few interesting passages
from National Geographic's article "Evolution of
Whales":

ÖI tried to visualize
some of the varieties of whale ancestors that had been found
here and nearby... As the rear limbs dwindled, so did the
hip bones that supported them. That made the spinal column
more flexible to power the developing tail flukes. The neck
shortened, turning the leading end of the body into more
of a tubular hull to plow through the water with minimum
drag, while arms assumed the shape of rudders. Having little
need for outer ears any longer, some whales were receiving
waterborne sounds directly through their lower jawbones
and transmitting them to the inner ears via special fat
pads. Each whale in the sequence was a little more streamlined
than earlier models and roamed farther from shore.167

On close inspection, in this whole account the
evolutionist mentality says that living things feel changing
needs according to the changing environment they live in,
and this need is perceived as an "evolutionary mechanism."
According to this logic, less needed organs disappear, and
needed organs appear of their own accord!

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of biology
will know that our needs do not shape our organs. Ever since
Lamarck's theory of the transfer of acquired characteristics
to subsequent generations was disproved, in other words for
a century or so, that has been a known fact. Yet when one
looks at evolutionist publications, they still seem to be
thinking along Lamarckian lines. If you object, they will
say: "No, we do not believe in Lamarck. What we say is that
natural conditions put evolutionary pressure on living things,
and that as a result of this, appropriate traits are selected,
and in this way species evolve." Yet here lies the critical
point: What evolutionists call "evolutionary pressure" cannot
lead to living things acquiring new characteristics according
to their needs. That is because the two so-called evolutionary
mechanisms that supposedly respond to this pressure, natural
selection and mutation, cannot provide new organs for animals:

- Natural selection can only select characteristics
that already exist, it cannot create new ones.

- Mutations cannot add to the genetic information,
they can only destroy the existing one. No mutation that adds
unequivocally new, meaningful information to the genome (and
which thus forms a new organ or new biochemical structure)
has ever been observed.

If we look at the myth of National Geographic's
awkwardly moving whales one more time in the light of this
fact, we see that they are actually engaging in a rather primitive
Lamarckism. On close inspection, National Geographic
writer Douglas H. Chadwick "visualizes" that "Each whale in
the sequence was a little more streamlined than earlier models."
How could a morphological change happen in a species over
generations in one particular direction? In order for that
to happen, representatives of that species in every "sequence"
would have to undergo mutations to shorten their legs, that
mutation would have to cause the animals no harm, those thus
mutants would have to enjoy an advantage over normal ones,
the next generations, by a great coincidence, would have to
undergo the same mutation at the same point in its genes,
this would have to carry on unchanged for many generations,
and all of the above would have to happen by chance and quite
flawlessly.

If the National Geographic writers believe
that, then they will also believe someone who says: "My family
enjoys flying. My son underwent a mutation and a few structures
like bird feathers developed under his arms. My grandson will
undergo the same mutation and the feathers will increase.
This will go on for generations, and eventually my descendants
will have wings and be able to fly." Both stories are equally
ridiculous.

As we mentioned at the beginning, evolutionists
display the superstition that living things' needs can be
met by a magical force in nature. Ascribing consciousness
to nature, a belief encountered in animist cultures, is interestingly
rising up before our eyes in the 21st century under a "scientific"
cloak. Henry Gee, the editor of Nature and an undisputedly
prominent evolutionist, points to the same fact and admits
that explaining the origin of an organ by its necessity is
like saying;

... our noses were made
to carry spectacles, so we have spectacles. Yet evolutionary
biologists do much the same thing when they interpret any
structure in terms of adaptation to current utility while
failing to acknowledge that current utility needs tell us
nothing about how a structure evolved, or indeed how the
evolutionary history of a structure might itself have influenced
the shape and properties of that structure.168

167
Douglas H. Chadwick, "Evolution of Whales," National Geographic,
November 2001, p. 69.168 Henry Gee, In Search Of Deep Time:
Beyond The Fossil Record To A New History Of Life, The
Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster Inc., 1999, p.
103.